Having seen all of the driving, I am going to get slated for this I know, but, I see Clark (in F1) as similar to Vettel.

I'd probably agree if it were based only on his F1 races where he took the fastest car designed by the recognised genius of the time and led a lot of races from the front. The fact that Jimmy was superb in everything he sat his arse in and was also recognised by his peers as the best of them sets him above and beyond Vettel or any of the current crop IMHO.

Besides I don't think it's valid to put today's drivers in the same list as the guys who four-wheel-drifted fuel-air bombs around armco-free corners through forests and rocks, or had straw bales between them and drowning in Monte Carlo harbour. That was a completely different ball game.

Concerning "emotive crowds", I think it's pretty clear that for no other driver out of the top 5, "emotion" is such an important element of their respective popular image and rating as it is for Senna.

Concerning "emotive crowds", I think it's pretty clear that for no other driver out of the top 5, "emotion" is such an important element of their respective popular image and rating as it is for Senna.

Except for a small detail.I wouldn´t say, that the Maserati of 54 was undoubtedly the best car. When Fangio moved to Mercedes mid-season, he definitely had the best car - but he was already leading the WDC before.

But that is negligible. My point was, that Fangio became always the major force in all these different enviroments, whereas we never saw Clark in F1 outside of his "cocoon" called Lotus. I´m not implying that he would´ve been useless somewhere else - but still....it would´ve certainly been interesting to see him in another team (e.g. nowadays also most people want to see Vettel leave Red Bull sooner or later).

There is no doubt about it, Ayrton was special, was he the best? not in my mind.

That's of course a perfectly valid opinion. And a bit more reasonably phrased than "no way should Ayrton be no.1".

As I see it, everyone averaging top-5 in such lists can be expected to be no.1 in some of them, and I wouldn't argue a "no way" against any of them. As for the "emotive crowd" that goes both ways when it comes to Senna. Surely Fangio or Clark would have been less controversial no.1's, and maybe that's precisely the reason why a broadcaster, living off publicity and headlines, hasn't chosen one of these two but Senna.

Again, watch the discussion unfold, after some 10 pages more I predict the emotions running at least as high anti-Senna as pro-Senna. I don't see the BBC's choice as a crowd pleaser at all, more like a sh*t stirrer.

Except for a small detail.I wouldn´t say, that the Maserati of 54 was undoubtedly the best car. When Fangio moved to Mercedes mid-season, he definitely had the best car - but he was already leading the WDC before.

But that is negligible. My point was, that Fangio became always the major force in all these different enviroments, whereas we never saw Clark in F1 outside of his "cocoon" called Lotus. I´m not implying that he would´ve been useless somewhere else - but still....it would´ve certainly been interesting to see him in another team (e.g. nowadays also most people want to see Vettel leave Red Bull sooner or later).

The big difference between Vettel and Jimmy Clark, is that Clark's contemporaries all believed he was by far a better driver than they were, and said as much.

You would not get that with Vettel, were you to ask his contemporaries if he is the best driver on the grid.

The fastest doesn't mean he is/was the best in overall terms. Formula One is about more than having one lap pace. I am not arguing Senna is on the wrong place as mentioned it is an individual list. But sometimes I am completely lost with this argument he was the best because of his natural talent/speed. Somehow Prost managed to beat him fair and square like a chess player. I guess formula one has more to offer and many fans love it.

btw. Good luck believing his colleagues would praise Clark so much , if he would drive nowadays.

I mentioned Vettel because it has already been brought up before you posted, and you even mentioned people wanting to see Vettel leave to see how he does in another car. I think the Vettel comparison is unfair as it was always clear as to how far above everyone else Clark was. Either way, he was a driver worth celebrating because what he did had never been seen before by anyone.

You can't prove one way or another what his colleagues would have said about Jimmy if his career unfolded now. He was fast in everything he drove, that's a fact. There's very few drivers who are/were fast in everything they drive/drove.

I mentioned Vettel because it has already been brought up before you posted, and you even mentioned people wanting to see Vettel leave to see how he does in another car. I think the Vettel comparison is unfair as it was always clear as to how far above everyone else Clark was. Either way, he was a driver worth celebrating because what he did had never been seen before by anyone.

You can't prove one way or another what his colleagues would have said about Jimmy if his career unfolded now. He was fast in everything he drove, that's a fact. There's very few drivers who are/were fast in everything they drive/drove.

it is a myth that Jim Clark was fast in everything. As a Jim Clark fan I'm not biased.

I mentioned Vettel because it has already been brought up before you posted, and you even mentioned people wanting to see Vettel leave to see how he does in another car. I think the Vettel comparison is unfair as it was always clear as to how far above everyone else Clark was. Either way, he was a driver worth celebrating because what he did had never been seen before by anyone.

Reading your answers i always get the impression, that i tried to question Clarks legacy (even though your arguments to prove his qualities are pretty unspecific). I didn´t. I just pointed out a difference between him and Fangio.

You can't prove one way or another what his colleagues would have said about Jimmy if his career unfolded now.

I don´t have to. I´m just stating my opinion about that matter. If you think, nowadays the whole grid would say "Jimmy is so much better then everybody else" then say it, instead of deflecting.

He was fast in everything he drove, that's a fact. There's very few drivers who are/were fast in everything they drive/drove.

Reading your answers i always get the impression, that i tried to question Clarks legacy (even though your arguments to prove his qualities are pretty unspecific). I didn´t. I just pointed out a difference between him and Fangio.

I don´t have to. I´m just stating my opinion about that matter. If you think, nowadays the whole grid would say "Jimmy is so much better then everybody else" then say it, instead of deflecting.

It is a list with opinions and that's it. But I don't think Senna is overrated. He was a legend before he died. It is in the way we look at racing. He could do some things with the car that some drivers won't and I started watching F1 before he came into the scene so spare me the "it's only because he died crap". I have never seen that from drivers like Schumacher or Prost even though I rate them highly as well. As for the old era with Fangio and so on they were exciting but it was another time and another sport which makes it difficult to compare drivers from different eras to each other.

I may have misheard, and I've never had cause or chance to check since, but didn't James Hunt make some comment during the 1993 Canadian GP to the effect that Senna was the greatest ever?

I thought at the time that it was a mildly controversial viewpoint (although not far off the mark IMO), but then of course James himself died the following day.

Given the obsession with stats that pervades here, surely Senna would have been considered even more of a legend if he had lived? He'd probably have had at least a couple more titles, some at the expense of Schumi. And his poles record would be in the stratosphere.

It is a list with opinions and that's it. But I don't think Senna is overrated. He was a legend before he died. It is in the way we look at racing. He could do some things with the car that some drivers won't and I started watching F1 before he came into the scene so spare me the "it's only because he died crap". I have never seen that from drivers like Schumacher or Prost even though I rate them highly as well. As for the old era with Fangio and so on they were exciting but it was another time and another sport which makes it difficult to compare drivers from different eras to each other.

I can agree on Prost he never showed magic you have seen in the likes of Schumacher or Senna. He was a completely different type of driver, very calculated, calm, focused. In an equal car he was able to challenge the fastest driver of his generation. He used a different approach as Senna but he was equal successful as the Ayrton. It's our perception that we see the speculator, emotional drivers with different eyes. Nobody would argue Palo Maldini was better than Pele. He scored the goals and was a joy to watch. Their impact on their teams was immense. For the Schumacher-Part he did magical things with his car more than any other driver. Just rewatch his early Ferrari days and his best wet races and you will change your opinion he never drove outside of the cars limit

So how exactly was Senna faster than Ascari, Fangio, Clark, Schumacher or even Hamilton/Alonso/Vettel today? You can't prove that.

Senna is so overrated. The guy wouldn't have been in the top 3 if it wasn't for his death. The most sainted driver ever. Even Prost was better than him.

Usually there are 2 things that people agreed about Senna. His ability of taking everything the car has to offer over 1 lap and his incredible car control in the wet.

If you want prove go and watch his races in wet conditions and his qualifying laps. The fact that he out-qualified his teammates 90% of the time is a good indication too.

The rest don't deserve a reply so I won't give one...

The fastest doesn't mean he is/was the best in overall terms. Formula One is about more than having one lap pace. I am not arguing Senna is on the wrong place as mentioned it is an individual list. But sometimes I am completely lost with this argument he was the best because of his natural talent/speed. Somehow Prost managed to beat him fair and square like a chess player. I guess formula one has more to offer and many fans love it.

I just said he was the fastest, i didn't said the fastest is the one that will achieve the best overall results. I meant that it is quite natural to place the fastest as the greatest and so there is no surprise in doing it.

Tarso Marques (who the hell was he?) beat Alonso, Button beat Hamilton, Farina beat Fangio, de Angelis beat Mansell. Should I continue? Prost beat Senna, but was nothing like a chess player. Senna never had been involved in so many incidents like in 89 and he would still had won if not for so many mechanical problems.In the other hand 89 was the best ever season for Prost in terms of incidents and mechanical problems. Some stats just to illustrate.

Senna has spun off 0.50 times and collided 0.70 times on average per season (only counting the ones that resulted in retirement). Prost has 0.76 for spun off and 0.54 for collisions. Senna has an average of 3.50 retirements per season because mechanical problems and Prost 2.92.

But in 89, Senna spun off 1 time, collided 2 times, had 4 mechanical problems and was disqualified in Japan. Prost collided 1 time and had 1 mechanical problem, way below his averages.

and IMO Prost was even more luckier thanks to McLaren been a rocketship and so the huge difference in speed meant only 1 place in the grid position or in the race result for Senna.

The general opinion here is that Senna was only fast in qualifying, but too inconsistent, crashed too much, caused all types of mechanical failures to the cars etc. It's certainly not what his averages show.

You don't just punch someone because he's an idiot.

I would say Senna didn't had a good behavior with anything related with racing inside or outside the track, but he was a completely different person when racing was not involved.

Usually there are 2 things that people agreed about Senna. His ability of taking everything the car has to offer over 1 lap and his incredible car control in the wet.

If you want prove go and watch his races in wet conditions and his qualifying laps. The fact that he out-qualified his teammates 90% of the time is a good indication too.

Couldn't you say the same about Schumacher, Fangio or Clark? In fact, couldn't you say the same about Hamilton, Vettel and Alonso today? There is no way of telling or knowing who was the fastest driver of all time - however, what is obvious is that Senna had certain... questionable traits.

His fanbase is no better, I'm afraid. Search up Senna, Go on any YouTube video, and write a comment claiming that there was a driver in history equally good or better than Senna. Within two days you will receive a bunch of bashing from highly-sensitive Senna admirers.

I believe Senna did enough to show that he was the best of his generation, regardless of any questionable traits. Other than that, I don't know if you can properly compare him with other greats like Fangio or Clark etc.